October 11, 2018--October Surprises

In election cosmology an October Surprise is a news event deliberately created, timed, or occurring spontaneously that influences the outcome of an election, particularly for the presidency.

With the upcoming midterm elections, since Donald Trump has kidnapped them and made the hundreds of congressional contests all about him--in effect, a referendum on his presidency--by nationalizing these individual races, it would not be unexpected for him to come up with a whopper of an October Surprise. One that would underscore what he claims to be his achievements (tax cuts, renegotiating NAFTA, withdrawing from the Iran deal, a strong job market) a surprise designed to motivate his base to vote for candidates he supports. Essentially, any and all Republicans running for office.

Recent examples of October Surprises include leaking the news in 2000, when George W. Bush was locked in a tight contest with Al Gore, that some years earlier Bush had been cited in Maine for driving while under the influence.

Four years later, to undermine Bush's reelection chances, Osama bin Laden released a videotape in which he took credit for the 9/11 terrorist attack in the hope that this would remind voters of Bush's failures.

The 2008 stock market crash weakened John McCain's chances in his race against Barack Obama. Republicans in general were blamed and the onset of the Great Recession boosted the chances of all Democrats, especially Obama's. So much so that the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress.

And then most recently, in 2016, it is generally agreed that FBI director James Comey ruined Hillary Clinton's candidacy when in late October he summarily released thousands of emails of hers that, even though they contained nothing disqualifying, reminded the voting public that she was not trustworthy.

What then might Trump have in mind for us during the next few weeks? We know he shapes a daily political drama to dominate the news cycle and thus I suspect there will be at least two surprises of magnitude that will suck up all the media oxygen. I predict there will, unprecedented, be at least two such surprises since for Trump more is never enough.

One will involve foreign affairs, the other will focus on domestic theatrics.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently spent a week in Asia. In China but more interesting in North Korea. After his Korea visit he said little progress was made in denuclearization talks. I wonder.

My guess is that he brought with him for Kim Jong-un one of those love letters Trump mentioned the other day. Letters so steamy that even the exhibitionist president said they were too amorous to disclose.

Trump's to Kim likely included a plea--

"Help me out please! I'm about to get shellacked in the midterm elections and need your help. Maybe you could blow up a big missile or two on live TV. I could then say you're on track to getting rid of all your nukes. Of course that's really unnecessary. I just need a good show one of these mornings. Maybe you could time it so it could be shown on Fox & Friends. My favorite."

Then domestically, a couple of days ago, without a formal announcement, Trump launched the Month of the Woman. It began with UN ambassador Nikki Haley announcing on live TV in the Oval Office that she is resigning. 

There they were, Trump and Haley together shamelessly flirting with each other. 

The Month of the Woman will culminate with Trump appointing Dina Powell, a woman, to replace Haley. Unless Trump can convince daughter Ivanka to allow him to appoint her. One advantage for her--it would get her out of Washington (which she hates) and back to New York City.

Recognizing that the so-called "gender gap" is hovering at about 30 points, some are saying it's not a gap but a chasm, realizing that, Trump will do all sorts of things between now and November 6th to focus on how good his presidency has been for women and then will hope that at least a few will show up at the polls in November and vote for him.

If women come out in a wave of votes for Democrats, he'll need more than a couple of surprises to keep him from being impeached in January. There aren't enough angry old white guys to keep him politically safe. We'll see, then, if he can bamboozle enough women to vote for Republicans as he did in 2016.

I'm saying, more than anything else, Kim has to come through for him.

August 27, 2018--As He Lay Dying

A day or two before the end, as his old best friend, John McCain, lay dying, as we have seen Lindsey do before, he couldn't keep his hands off his new best friend, Donald J. Trump. 

Senator Lindsey Graham is such a suck up for hunky men that when he encounters one, or one pretending to be one, he seemingly can't control himself.

This time, with Trump, the gift he brought was to clear a path that would enable him to fire the Attorney General with minimal political dissent or outrage. This he gift-wrapped for Trump, the one man John McCain clearly despised. At least he could have waited until after the funeral. We know Trump won't show up, isn't welcome, and now I wonder about jilted-by-death Lindsey. Will he have the cajones to show his face at the service. 

This gift about when and how to dump Sessions was hand delivered by the same swooning Lindsey who only a few months ago said that if Trump fires Sessions there will be "holy hell to pay."

Late last week Graham noted that Sessions has clearly lost Trump's confidence (this is news?) and that he, Lindsey, a leader in the Senate, did not necessarily object to Trump replacing him after the midterm elections. 

Presumably the congressional elections will result in deep loses among Republicans and, Graham suggested, as presidents in the past have done, Trump should "reshuffle" his cabinet mainly to deflect blame for the election results from himself to his hapless underlings. 

And by reshuffling Graham means dumping a few cabinet officers, not just Sessions, so he won't stick out so much. It would appear to be more a house cleaning than retribution because Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation and refused to see his job as protecting Trump from his own worst proclivities.

I suppose this advice constitutes something other than what Lindsey considers hell to pay.

Think Clinton in 1994, George W. Bush in 2006, and Barack Obama in 2010. All of whom reshuffled their cabinets after off-cycle election results.

And think how President Lyndon Johnson got around being pressured to make Bobby Kennedy his running mate in 1964. LBJ despised RFK even more than McCain hated Trump or Trump hates Sessions. 

He announced that his choice would not be from anyone serving in his cabinet (Bobby was still Attorney General) because there was so much work to do that he couldn't spare anyone's full-time attention. 

Everyone at the time knew what he was really doing--jettisoning Kennedy--and before long Johnson had become so politically toxic that he little choice but to withdrew from the 1986 race.

If only history could in this case repeat itself.

Rona has another theory about what Lindsey Graham is up to--

She thinks he is too smart and weaselly to give into his infatuation and is trying to trick Trump into not firing Sessions until after the midterms. He believes that Trump firing Sessions before November would so inflame voters that the Republicans would do even worse than is currently predicted.

Interesting. 

In that case let's hope Trump fires Sessions at the end of  October. Let that be the October Surprise. That would be better than bombing North Korea.

Then we could begin to speculate who Trump will attempt to appoint (I say "attempt" because Democratic senators will filibuster).

Top of the list could be Rudy or Chris Christie (remember him?). Or perhaps from Trump's world of reality TV--Judge Judy, Judge Jeanine, Judge Nepolitano, or Laura Ingraham who is a lawyer.

Perhaps most confirmable by the Senate is, why not, Lindsey Graham.

March 13, 2018--Spatting With Friends

I'm spatting again with some of my liberal friends. 

This time about the potential meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.

They are sharply critical of Trump for so impetuously agreeing to meet while I, though I too have my reservations, have been asking them what are the better alternatives--Not talking? Exchanging insults? ("Little Rocket Man," "Dotard") Saber rattling? All-out war where everyone agrees hundreds of thousands would die within minutes?

Most frequently, my friends, though they generally feel direct talks are ultimately a good idea, contend it is premature for Trump to agree to meet before traditional forms of negotiation and diplomacy prepare the way for a presidential meeting.

As one put it, "Countries such as North Korea, rogue countries seeking the imprimatur of legitimacy, see being invited to a face-to-face encounter in itself to be a major goal. Trump meeting with Kim would be a sign of welcoming him and North Korea into the company of credible nations. Kim craves a seat at that table. And so for Trump to trade it away, getting nothing substantial in return, is not the way to make a deal with the likes of Kim."

All good points, I concede but continue to ask what are the alternatives. My friends say, "None of the above."

So again I ask, "What should we do?"

My friends continue to say have Secretary of State Tillerson and what little staff he has work on what they would discuss when meeting, preparing the way for it, very much including what the two leaders will say and do when they finally get together. What agreements they can endorse and literally sign off on. Come up with agreements about step-by-step plans for the North that include ratcheting back their nuclear program while we agree to drawdown our military forces that are stationed in South Korea. 

And, of course, my friends say, to make sure before Kim and Trump meet that there will be verifiable stipulations regarding how the various drawdowns will be verified. To quote Ronald Regan when dealing with the Soviet Union, "Trust, but verify." In Russian, Doveryay, no proveryay.

"Sounds good," I say, "But the sad reality is that Trump does not have a diplomatic team in place or anyone for that matter in his administration who knows anything about East Asia much less Korea. We don't even have an ambassador to South Korea. And so, considering all of this and the reality of North Korea's nuclear weapons and ICBMs, what's the best way to proceed?"

At this point conversation begins to lose velocity with my friends and I at least agreeing that there are no precedents to draw upon and, considering the type of leaders they and we are afflicted with, maybe we have no choice but to try it Kim's and Trump's way--roll the dice and hope for the best. 

With that hope based precariously on the very fact of who are our leaders. One, in Kim, whose favorite American seems to be the preposterous Dennis Rodman while those most on our president's mind also come from the media and popular culture--"Alex" Baldwin and Chuck Todd. 

Before we move on, to underscore why I am attempting to cling to hope, I ask my friends why they believe with a Kim and a Trump traditional approaches, traditional forms of diplomacy have any chance of succeeding. Even if there were the usual Republican foreign policy folks serving in the Trump administration or, for that matter, if Hillary Clinton had been elected and with her there was the usual army of Democratic foreign policy experts, with Trump and Kim why would we expect any of the traditional approaches to foreign policy to work.

"Didn't we try that?" I ask, "Republicans as well as Democrats, when they or we were in power? What evidence of success can we point to from the approaches of the previous four presidents, who, over more than 25 years, tried various strategies, from cajoling and threatening to buying-off (bribing) the North Korean leadership?" 

Pressing further, I also ask, "What did George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama for that matter accomplish with regard to North Korea?" 

And concluding, I say, "During those two-plus decades the North Koreans became a major nuclear power. That's what got accomplished."

One more troubling thing--a friend, who I suspect represents a somewhat widespread feeling in progressive circles, acknowledged that a big part of him doesn't want this approach to work because he doesn't want anything positive to happen during Trump's presidency. Not to the economy and not in world affairs.

"So," I said, "If Kim and Trump roll the dice and that fails won't we then wind up going to nuclear war? If this is where we're already headed, maybe, just maybe . . ."

August 12, 2017--Messianic Calling

On 9/11, President George W. Bush spoke in apocalyptic terms about how he felt God calling upon him to respond to the terrorist attack on America. And how in this way he found his purpose in life. To combat evil, he said.

He was comfortable with messianic references because they derived, as a born again Christian, from his evangelical faith.

We know how that worked out. We are still, 16 years later, fighting the wars he initiated.

Now we have our current president also talking in apocalyptical terms as he threatens North Korea with old-testimental "fire and fury."

We know that this choice of words did not come from religious belief. As best as we can determine, he lacks any. But, as with Bush, they come from deep within him.

His is a secular narcissistic messianism.

Colloquially, he speaks about North Korea and his calling--

"Bill Clinton didn't get it done. Bush didn't get it done. Obama didn't get it done. Someone has to do it. It might as well be me." As with everything else, between rounds of golf, he shrugs his shoulders and matter-of-factly indicates it will be easy. He tells us and them he is "locked and loaded" with nuclear weapons.

I suspect, if he pushes the button, we know how that will work out.

Among other things we won't any longer be talking about Obamacare or collusion with Russia and, at least initially, his approval ratings will soar.

April 18, 2017--Presidential Daddy Problems

Since John F. Kennedy almost all of our presidents and aspirants to the presidency have had Daddy problems.

This struck me again recently when watching Donald Trump, pose in the Oval Office to sign an executive order to gut one more Obama initiative. This one I think having to do with environmental protection regulations.

President Trump has not given much attention to making the White House office his own. The shelves are deplete of books with the exception of an impersonal row or two of leather bound volumes purchased by the foot. Probably an ornamental set of Dickens novels. His desk has a messy stack of papers and files but no visible tchotchkes. And on the credenza behind his desk where all presidents array at least a dozen pictures of their families (even Nixon did this!), on Trump's credenza there is just one picture--a severe black-and-white photo of his Germanic-looking father, Frederick. And, yes, there is also a stack of souvenir golf balls. I assume one from each of his 17 courses.

When thinking about presidents and their fathers, there are reasons to begin with Barack Obama. His Daddy problem stemmed from the fact that he essentially didn't have one. I believe he met his Kenyan father just once when he was 10 years old. The title of his first book, Dreams From My Father, says it all. In fact, it could serve as the title of books by at least a dozen of our presidents--how they each were either in search of their fathers or coveted their involvement, love, and acknowledgement. In Barack's case all of this was missing and that contributed to the kind of adult and president he became.

Of presidents Kennedy had a pathologically involved and controlling father. From early on Father Joe unrelentingly prepped his sons for public life. His oldest boy, Joe Junior, was slated to become president and when he was killed in action in World War II Joe Senior's attention immediately turned to second son Jack, who he pushed to get into politics (JFK was reluctant) and for whom he then behind the scenes bankrolled his career and, it is generally agreed, not only promoted his various runs for office, but in 1960 spread enough money around to assure his winning the nomination and then conspired with political bosses in key states, including bribing them, to fix the vote count to assure his son's election to the presidency.

And once elected, Joe Kennedy, out of public view, played a major roll in influencing policy. It is now also fully known that President Kennedy on a daily basis sought his father's guidance and was powerfully motivated to please him and seek his approbation. Some biographers even say that JFK's hawkish inclinations were in large part to demonstrate manhood to his philandering Daddy.

Joseph and John F. Kennedy

Lyndon Johnson succeeded Kennedy. His father was a major player in the Texas state legislature but a poor businessman. So much so that when his finances collapsed the Johnson family lived for decades in dire poverty. Sam Johnson was a very severe man and never showed son, Lyndon, much affection or offered encouragement or praise. Robert Caro, Johnson's remarkable biographer, writes at length about how LBJ sought to please his father even well after he died. Much of what Johnson did was an attempt to make up for his father's failure and ultimately to surpass him.

Then there was Richard Nixon. No one had a more clinical Daddy problem than young Dick. There is no evidence that his censorious father ever praised him for any of his accomplishments. Quite the contrary. Dick was also raised in virtual poverty--his father's various business schemes for the most part failed and he took his frustrations out on his children, especially the bright, hardworking, and eventually successful son. Desperate for his father's praise and encouragement, he pushed himself beyond sensible or legal limits and brought himself down in the process. The disparagement and constant criticism he felt from his father was a large part of what motivated Dick--to show by his dogged success that he was worthy.

Jimmy Carter's father, according to his biographers, was also a withholding patriarch for whom his son, Jimmy, could never do enough to win his affection or praise. One even goes so far as to say that Carter's propensity to laugh without seeming motivation when speaking in public was the result of a lifetime of accumulated anger. Much of it derived from his father's severity. It was, in a manner of speaking, a nervous laugh that attempted to obscure the frustration and anger he felt from an unhappy, caustic childhood relationship with his Daddy.

Ronald Reagan's father was a lifelong alcoholic who moved his family from town to town across the Midwest in an attempt to find work and change his luck. He was unsuccessful in many ways--never able to provide for his family, establish a sustainable relationship with his wife, or provide emotional support for his children. Son Ronald was so wounded by his upbringing, though he was a great storyteller, that he barely mentioned him. It was as if these memories were so painful that he excised his father from the narrative of his life in an attempt to get out from under the memories of his gnawing presence.

Both Bush presidents, though they achieved the ultimate political prize, never felt they were worthy of their fathers' love or pride. George H.W. Bush's father, Prescott, was a successful financier and later, when elected to the U.S. Senate, was held in high esteem by his congressional colleagues. To him, his children could never do or accomplish enough to earn his fulsome praise. No matter how much George achieved it was never enough. Like many presidential fathers he was emotionally aloof from his boys, never making them feel appreciated or affirmed.

Bill Clinton's biological father died three months before Bill was born. His mother some years later remarried and Bill took his stepfather's name. But the marriage to his mother did not last and after she divorced him, he drifted out of young Bill's life. So in many ways Bill Clinton was fatherless and many who have studied his life and written about him claim that the emotional void that was the result of this unsatisfying family life helps explain his undisciplined nature as a politician, family member, and man.

George W. Bush, son of the 41st president, also felt his father's emotional coolness and thus tried desperately to please him. Many say that his decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein was to "finish the job" his father left unresolved when he had American troops come to the aid of Kuwait, which had been invaded by Iraq, and to surpass him as a wartime president. Also, some historians feel that his turning to Dick Cheney to serve as his vice president and cede to him so much of the power of the presidency was the result of Bush's impulse to seek substitutes for his biological parent, in the hope that they would offer him the affirmation he so desperately needed.

Other than as a curiosity should any of this interest or concern us?

It could well be that so many of our presidents having Daddy problems of this kind is a problem.

Seeking acknowledgement to salve fragile self-esteem may in the first instance be what motivated most of them to seek the power of the presidency. Not the desire to protect and improve the lives of those who elected them. If emotionally compromised as a result of the influences of their fathers, it also may be that allowing unresolved intra-psychic issues to influence decision making, particularly in crisis situations, gets in the way of their using their best, most rational judgement. We do not benefit by our presidents, when stressed by the consequences of dangerous decisions, to be so emotionally influenced.

One can only wonder what Frederick "Fred" Trump (ne Drumpf) might right now be thinking as his son attempts to deal with the North Korean threat. It could be that son Donald's boundless ego and insecurity are more on display and influencing his decision-making than any of his predecessors.

I would feel better about the situation if President Trump had a full array of family pictures on his Oval Office credenza, not just the one of Fred. Especially pictures of his children and grandchildren because what he decides and authorizes will affect them and their generation more than Trump himself or those of us who have already had full lives.

Fred and Donald Trump

December 7, 2016--Fake News: Pizzaagate

Recently, fake news has been much in the headlines. Fake news being entirely made up stuff masquerading as real news that gets posted and circulated on the Internet either to do harm to someone (like Hillary Clinton) of just as scurrilous or dangerous entertainment. Frequently, all three.

The Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria story is quite a case in point.

Back in October, a month before the election, a few Internet sites, including the Vigilant Citizen, that on the surface look like legitimate news sources, began to "report" that the Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria was really a front for child-trafficing activities. In the back room, John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, and Hillary herself, led a ring of child-abusers who kidnapped, molested, and then sold children to other child-abusers to serve as sex slaves.

If you haven't been following the story, yes, this is unbelievably true.

These posting went viral, literally globally, and the pizzeria has become the subject of an explosion of social media postings, most of them from conspiracy theorists. And on Sunday, someone showed up to rescue children from the notorious back room. Showed up with a pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle, which he fired just as police were arriving to arrest him.

As shocking and disturbing as this is, versions of fake news are not new.

What is new are the means through which this "news" is propagated. Now we have the Internet, specifically social media, to get the word out and circulated. In the past we had newspapers of different levels of repute that, usually for political purposes, would print the intentionally false news.

All the way back in 1828, during the presidential campaign that pitted Andrew Jackson against incumbent president John Quincy Adams, newspapers under Adams' control circulated stories asserting, via lurid stories, that his wife was a bigamist. In so doing, they pointed out that this would make Jackson an adulterer and Rachel, how to put this, a slut.

Rachel, Jackson's wife, may or may not have fully finalized her divorce from Captain Lewis Robards before marrying Jackson. The Adams people, of course insisted that she hadn't and launched invectives against Old Hickory that rivaled or surpassed the ones Donald Trump leveled against his opponents.

To complicate matters, in the Jackson situation, there is fake news within the fake news--a friend of Captain Robards in his own newspaper, in an attempt to take the heat off Jackson, knowingly published a fake story that the divorce had in fact been completed. It probably hadn't been.

Rachel died in 1828, months before Jackson, who won in a landslide, was inaugurated. It broke his heart.

More recently, well before the emergence of the social media, fake news to hurt political opponents has been commonplace. For example, in 2000, as George W. Bush vied with Joh McCain for the Republican nomination, it was agreed by most that whomever of them won the South Carolina primary would go on to secure the nomination. To defeat his rival--McCain was favored because of his military background--Bush people circulated the fake news that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child.

This doomed his candidacy.

Bush won the SC primary, was nominated, and thanks to the Supreme Court, became our 43rd president.

This history is no comfort to the owner and employees of the pizzeria--it is a place to which the crazies have affixed crosshairs--but when we talk with concern about the proliferation of fake news, it's important to know that we have lived with versions of it for our entire history. And figured out a way to survive.

You don't want me to tell you the made-up stories about George Washington!

Rachel Jackson

January 17, 2016--My Republican Friends

She sounded so angry.

"I hate them!" It was a lifelong friend calling from New York.

"Is everything all right?"

"No! Everything's all wrong!"

"With?"

"I just told you. With everything"

"Everything?"

"Well, not everything." She was beginning to calm down. "But pretty much everything. We're finished."

"We're? Who's the we? And again what's the everything? Or the pretty much everything? That sounds serious." I was looking for some way to lighten the mood.

"The country. Everything's getting worse. Look at the election. I mean, at the Republicans."

"We can argue about all of this because I don't think everything or pretty much everything is getting worse. I agree that some things are worse; but I'm old enough, and to tell the truth, so are you, to remember when down here in Florida there was legal segregation, women couldn't easily get into medical or law school, pretty much all gay people were closeted, there was a lot of overt antisemitism, there was World War II and the Cold War, and . . ."

"You're right about much of this but still. Maybe it's an aging thing, I hate what's going on and I hate them."

"Again the them. You have to help me out here. Clearly I'm not following you. If, as you say . . ."

"Republicans."

"That's who you hate?"

"I despise them. Is that better than hate?" I could sense her quivering.

"To me, not that much better. And . . ."

"And I know what you're going to say. I've told you this before, you spend too much time with them. With Republicans. I read your stuff and a lot of it sounds as if you're apologizing for them. How many positive things have you written about that horror show Donald Trump? Whose last name you keep insisting on capitalizing."

"About this we can really disagree. Both in Florida and in Maine I do have quite a few Republican friends and, though I differ with them about most of their political views, I really like them and beyond that learn a lot from them. Partly by having some of my insufficiently examined beliefs and views challenged but also because I find myself agreeing with some of what they have to say."

"There. You said it--you agree with them."

"Not about everything. Far from that. But . . ."

"But about what?"

"Like we need to revisit the cost structure and effectiveness of our social programs. Especially Social Security, Medicare, and the Veteran's Administration."

"You'd cut them back? Obamacare too?"

"No. But make them work better and make sure that people who need them get more assistance than at present. Making the system more pay-as-you-go. Remember that concept? Shouldn't we liberals or, if you prefer progressives, who believe in a significant role for government, be the first ones clamoring to clean up the inefficiencies and abuses and stop making excuses for them?"

"Sounds dangerous to me. If we join the conservatives in critiquing these safety-net programs that people pay for, we'll only contribute to pulling the rug out from under them."

"But doesn't our reflexive, unquestioning support for these programs do more harm than good? Doesn't that call our credibility and the justification for these programs into question? I'm trying to say that though I come to very different bottom lines than most of my Republican friends I share their criticism that all these programs should have to face scrutiny and be forced to clean up their act. So they can run more efficiently, be less vulnerable, become more cost-effective, and do more good. I don't hear too many progressives saying this."

"And what about your Donald Trump? You seem unduly attracted to him."

"He's not mine but I'll admit to that."

"You'd consider voting for him?"

"Maybe but when it comes time to pull the lever I doubt I would. In any case, I'm not ready just yet to do any declaring."

"What's the attraction?" I was happy to hear that my friend had stopped sounding so agitated.

"For me he's a wonderfully disruptive force. Even a radical one. More than Bernie Sanders. Which is why both establishments are so afraid of him. He could turn out to be a traitor to his class. I'm not saying he's potentially dangerous because the GOP feel he'd lose to Hillary. Or because the Democrats are afraid he'd win in November. But because they both fear that if he wins he will expose and then change the nature of the game both parties have been playing for years and getting away with."

"I still hate them all."

I chose to ignore that.

"Take just two recent examples--how he responded to getting booed during the debates in New Hampshire and South Carolina. How TRUMP turned on the audience, saying that the auditoriums were packed with party hacks, donors, and lobbyists who were invited to attend by the Republican National Committee. He was right about that. Ditto, by the way, for the Democrats. And, here's the radical part--he didn't care that they were booing him. He responded with a dismissive wave, indicating he doesn't need them. That in fact they are at the heart of our political and governmental problems. Not part of the solution."

"I admit I did like that," my best friend said.

"And my other example, an even more potent one, was how he insisted on picking at the 9/11 scab, saying, correctly I'm sure you would agree, that George W. Bush didn't 'keep us safe.' Quite the opposite. He reminded Republicans that George W was president on 9/11, not Bill Clinton, and had been for eight months. Then after that he had us invade Iraq, lying--that was his word--about their having weapons of mass destruction. And how as a result that region is now in almost total chaos. What did you think about that?"

My friend muttered something into the phone which I didn't understand.

"Remarkable, right, that the GOP front runner would say this, and double down on it, while in South Carolina on the very same day ex-president Bush emerged from his political cocoon to campaign for little brother Jeb. And when someone from the press suggested that he'd pay a political price for saying this, especially in so-called 'Bush Country,' TRUMP said, he literally said, 'I don't care.'"

"I didn't hear that."

"Maybe that's because you don't have enough Republican friends."

At that at last we both laughed.

December 1, 2105--George Herbert Walker Bush

There's lots to savor in Jon Meacham's comprehensive and readable biography of our 41st president.

Though it has the over-puffed title, Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush, it is for the moment definitive and hard to put down.

Also, at less than 900 pages, it is appropriately proportioned.

Bush was not the kind of or accomplished enough or sufficiently complex a president to call for 900 pages much less four volumes and counting as is the case for the larger-than-life Lyndon Johnson as represented at vast length by Robert Caro.

In truth, even in the Meacham book, H.W. (or Poppy) was not destined to become president. To the manor born, yes, wealthy, assured, to win a seat in Congress, likely, to head the CIA, certainly, but the presidency, no. Not destined for that.

And to think of his life as an odyssey, also a bit much. Odysseus had an odyssey. Not Bush. Not really.

But what do I know, Destiny and Power went right to the top of the New York Times bestseller list two days ago. A week after it was published.

Here's a flavor.

First from pages 464-5 about his wise thinking as commander in chief after building a genuine global coalition and, via Desert Storm, led the battle to oust Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait.

He got that job done in 100 days and though pressed by the Republican political right refused to have our troops take Baghdad and bring down Saddam Hussein. Here's why--

Our stated mission, as codified in U.N. resolutions, was a simple one--end the aggression, knock Iraq's forces out of Kuwait, and restore Kuwait's leaders. To occupy Kuwait would instant shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. It would have taken us way beyond the imprimatur of international law bestowed by the resolutions of the Security Council, assigned young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator, condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability and destroy the credibility we were working hard to reestablish. [My italics]

If only his son, Bush the Second, W, 43, rather than being guided by God, as he put it, had sought advice from his father before his disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Then, on page 144, there is one of my favorite LBJ anecdotes--

In 1969, while a member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bush was thinking about running for the Senate. He had one of the safest Texas House seats, a place on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, and a secure congressional future. He wondered, "Was the Senate worth the risk?"

To help him decide, he flew to Stonewall Texas to ask ex-president Johnson. Who better to ask?

"Mister president, I've got a decision to make and I'd like your advice. My House seat is secure and I've got a position on Ways and Means. I don't mind taking risks, but in a few more terms, I'll have seniority on a powerful committee. I'm just not sure it's a gamble I should take. Whether it's really worth it." 

"Son," Johnson said, "I've served in the House. And I've been privileged to serve in the Senate too. And they're both good places to serve. So I wouldn't advise you what to do, except to say this--that the difference between being a member of the Senate and a member of the House is the difference between chicken salad and chicken shit."

Bush took Johnson's advice, gave up his House seat, ran against incumbent Ralph Yarborough, and promptly lost.

The rest of the story is Bush's odyssey.

November 30, 2105--The Legacy Business

I know, all recent presidents do it toward the end of their second terms--play the legacy game.

Nancy Reagan put Ronnie under pressure to focus on arms control during his last years in office to counteract the perception that he was a rigid, unrepentant Cold Warrior. He was so good at being flexible with the leadership of the Soviet Union that he was able to strike a series of arms control agreements with Mikhail Gorbachev that contributed a few years later to the collapse of the USSR and the end (at least until now) of the Cold War.

George W. Bush, stung by increasing criticism of of his Middle East policy, jettisoned one of the leading public faces of that failed war policy--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--and committed himself to pulling all combat troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. He saw that to be an essential ingredient of his legacy, also pushed along to do so by his wife.

Which brings us to Barack Obama--the inheritor of various failed Bush policies, from a collapsed economy, out-of-control deficits, and Bush's unfulfilled pledge to withdraw our combat troops from the region, something Obama more or less carried out as part of his own legacy-building agenda.

Obama, in fact, has been thinking about his legacy from almost day one.

He did not want to go down in history as just "the first African-American president." He cared at least as much about substance. Thus Obamacare was a major accomplishment unto itself but also prime-cut legacy material--he uniquely was able to bring about a dramatic expansion of healthcare coverage, an unachieved goal of all presidents from at least Harry Truman days. As Joe Biden said at the time, "This is a f ***king big deal."

So that legislative achievement may make the first paragraph of his Wikipedia entry.

The same legacy claim was made when he appointed Sonia Sotomayer to the Supreme Court, the first Hispanic to serve.

Then, more recently, with his presidential clock counting down, Obama and his people began to think even more overtly about his legacy.

The nuclear deal with Iran is claimed to be his capstone foreign policy achievement and a big legacy item. Ditto for the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. And even yesterday's headline on page one of the New York Times about the current climate summit was titled, "Obama's Legacy at Stake in Paris Talks on Climate Accord."

Not, the "World's Future at Stake in Paris Climate Talks."

That would be the more appropriate headline considering the nature of the problem--not Obama's legacy but the fate of Earth.

So, enough with the legacy business. We have serious issues to face. Including the defeat of ISIS/ISIL/IS/ or Daesh

In legacy terms this is not going well for Obama who just a day before the Paris massacre declared "ISIL contained."

Again, in legacy terms, it is sadly understandable that he was reluctant to appear too upset by the situation in the Middle East and now Europe. He doesn't want to rise of ISIL to creep onto the first page of his Wiki entry much less future histories of his presidency.

June 26, 2015--Obamacare!

With the Supreme Court decision announced yesterday that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional, in addition to all the lives that will be bettered and saved as a result, there is one jolly political irony for those of us who consider it a pretty good piece of social legislation and feel that Barack Obama deserves to leave office in two-and-a-half years with his reputation, all right--his legacy, enhanced.

Here's the irony--

From literally the day Obama was elected in November 2008, many activist Republicans saw his election somehow to be illegitimate and have done everything they can to bring him down and delegitimatize him and his accomplishments--again, his legacy.

This is not to say that he has been a "great" or even a "near-great" president (if he secures a sound deal with Iran regarding their nuclear weapons program his stature will rise further) or that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, but all things considered--the economy, the roiled world with its out-of-control nationalisms and terrorism--he has done a rather good job. The economy is decidedly better than the one he inherited and he did end in an admittedly bumpy way the two wars that George W. Bush started and led into chaos.

But still GOP leaders and most of their followers wake up every day thinking about what they can do to undo everything Obama had a hand in accomplishing. Nothing more fervently than the ACA which the House of Representatives under John Boehner's fractured leadership voted to repeal literally dozens of times. There was a time during 2010 after the GOP seized control of the House that they did so every week for months.

Even Jeb Bush yesterday, with all the courage of a marshmallow, vowed to repeal it the day he is sworn into office in January 2017

As a sneering epithet to stigmatize the ACA, Republicans labeled it Obamacare. They couldn't say it enough. It was supposed to remind Americans that this abominable piece of legislation was the result of "his" efforts, the best evidence that he was a European-style socialist.

The name stuck. And isn't it amusing that this healthcare law, which is already providing life-saving coverage for up to 17 million previously uninsured Americans, many of them poor, and now twice has been upheld by a radically divided Supreme Court, will likely remain a permanent part of our social safety net alongside Social Security and more appropriately Medicare and Medicaid?

No other law that I can think of is named for a president. Social Security isn't called Roosevelt-Security, Medicare is not referred to as Johnsoncare, nor is the Voting Right Act named for LBJ. Welfare reform is not Clintonfare. Yes, we have the Monroe and Truman Doctrines but they were promulgated by an executive order, not something hatched with their leadership and then considered and passed by Congress.

Obamacare will be the way the Affordable Care Act will forever be known. So three-cheers for it and Obama.

As Joe Biden was heard to say on an open mike back in Match 2010 when it was passed, "This is a big f---ing deal."

May 19, 2015--The Rodham Boys

Well, John Bolton has decided not to run for president. Remember him? George W. Bush's choice for UN ambassador? Knowing he wasn't confirmable because of his hyper-hawkish ways (Bolton was ready to bomb Iran even before John McCain was), he received an interim appointment and was a favorite on the Sunday talk show circuit and at other times was always on Fox. As much for his tell-it-like-it-is style as his flamboyant walrus mustache

In a field of otherwise bland candidates, I would have loved to have seen him squeeze himself and that mustache into the Republican clown car. Oh well.

But for those of us who can't wait for the GOP candidates' debates to begin--especially now that our favorite TV shows are shutting down for the season or, like Mad Men, the duration--the GOP Show has the potential to help us get through the summer doldrums and then much of next year.

But just when I thought the comedic potential of the 2016 lineup would not equal the fun provided last time around by Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann among others, that I'd have to settle for Rick Perry, Ben Carson, and hopefully Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, who was supposed to be the adult in group, has gone off the tracks and may, it turns out, be good for a few laughs.

The last few days were not good for him politically, but for entertainment he won the week.

It took him four or five attempts to tell interviewers if he would have invaded Iraq if he knew then what he knows now. That the intelligence data was phony, "sexed up" by Dick Cheney.

First he said yes, then no, and seemingly yes again before asserting, though he loves his brother, no. I came away as confused as he. But amused.

Among other things, since he's been thinking about running for president for at least 20 years, one would have expected that for that inevitable question he would have precooked an answer. If Ted Cruz has managed to do so, why not the supposedly-competent Jeb Bush whose brother after all made that mess.

On the other side, Hillary also didn't have much of a week. In fact, a few more like the last one and Bernie Sanders will start to look good to more than the talk show hosts on MSNBC. But, as always, the Clintons can be counted on to be an ongoing soap opera.

This time it's not about Benghazi, Emailgate, or Clinton Cash, though the news at the end of last week about how Bill and Hillary pocketed $30 million in lecture fees over the past 16 months, makes one wonder what wisdom they must impart to justify more than $200,000 a pop for a speaking engagement, but about Hillary's two less-than accomplished brothers--the Rodham Boys. Boys who remind me of Jimmy Carter's extended family of hucksters and hustlers.

We know that corporate folks will pay-to-play with the Clintons, but Hillary's siblings?

In familiar behavior for people related to relatives in power, they used their family connections to open doors and get them into deals that they would have been excluded from if they were, say, my brothers.

For example, according to a recent report in the New York Times, after the earthquake in Haiti, brother Tony Rodham tried to get Bill Clinton--who, through the Clinton Foundation was supporting relief and rebuilding efforts-- to help him and his partners secure a $22 million deal to rebuild homes. In a subsequent law suit, Rodham explained how "a guy in Haiti" had "donated" 10,000 acres of land to him and testified how he pressured his brother-in-law to get the project funded.

"A deal through the Clinton Foundation. That gets me in touch with Haitian officials. I hound my brother-in-law, because it's his fund that we're going to get our money from. And he can't do it until the Haitian government does it."

Not deterred when things didn't quite work out, Tony worked on Bill Clinton to get permission for investors he was representing to mine for gold, again in Haiti.

When he presents himself to corporate groups seeking speakers, he refers to himself as a "facilitator," an honest appellation that could cover the entire extended family.

BREAKING NEWS--South Carolina senator Lindsay Graham just announced he'll be running for president. This is great news. He's hilarious.

April 27, 2015--Testing One, Two, Three

All over America school kids are being tested. Some are taking tests that derive from what their states require while others are being tested to see how well they have absorbed the material associated with the controversial Common Core curriculum which 44 states have adopted.

And then there are the hundreds of thousands of children not taking any tests at all. This, for many, to protest the importance assigned to tests that supposedly call for rote learning or have high-stakes consequences. Consequences for the kids, their schools and districts, and for their teachers.

Let me be clear that in virtually all instances it is the parents lodging these protests by keeping their children home, not the kids themselves making these decisions. Sort of like the anti-vacine parents.

There are many layers that require unpacking in order to understand what is going on. It is not as simple as it may seem.

First, whose fault is it that we have all these tests? Some say it's former president George W. Bush's since he allegedly wanted to break teachers' unions by holding them accountable for the results. And Teddy Kennedy's, who wanted to show he could work in a bipartisan way and made a deal with Number 43 when he signed off on Bush's signature school reform program, No Child Left Behind that required universal testing and meet certain standards in order for states to leverage federal funds. And, of course, like everything else people do not like, it's Barack Obama's fault since he has a radical agenda for the federal government to snatch authority from the states and take over the education of our children, very much including indoctrinating and testing them. Some feel, through the imposition of Common Core.

If you live in New York and watch TV, you are being flooded with ads paid for by the state's teachers' unions that claims it's governor Andrew Cuomo's fault. He's doing a Scott Walker, they say, by showing how tough he can be on teachers, using testing as a way to fire teachers he doesn't like. All this presumably to get ready to run for president if Hillary Clinton continues to falter.

And then there are those (me included) who feel requiring some forms of achievement testing is one way, one way, to see if kids are learning and to use what the tests show as part of the mix, part of the mix, of evaluative tools available to hold everyone involved accountable for how well students are faring--individual teachers, school principals, school districts, states, and the children themselves.

Then there is the matter of using test results to distinguish between the achievement of individual students. This is very complicated business in a society that conservatives sees as guided by meritocratic values--that there is a natural hierarchy based on talent, hard work, and success--while at that same time to others, progressives, there is the belief in human equality and thus call for polices to assure not just equality of opportunity but equality of results.

This in a society that often overpraises children, awarding trophies to all, including to those who come in last. Awards for showing up and trying. Or maybe just for showing up.

Often the anti-testing people are the very ones seeking advantages for their own children at all levels of schooling, especially those that can afford to supplement what is available even in private schools to assure their own children's ultimate advantages.

Some years ago when the arguments about testing first roiled discourse about schooling and its outcomes, I had a colleague at the very progressive Ford Foundation, actually the vice president to whom I reported, who was a fierce critic of traditional forms of testing and a strong advocate of what was thought to be "authentic assessment." Approaches that called for more nuanced and three-dimensional methods to measure student achievement. Including non-traditional forms of assessment where student outcomes would be evaluated by things such as portfolios of their work. It was felt that this was a fairer approach than the usual testing and would thus contribute to narrowing the achievement gap.

She at the time had high-school-age twins who attended a selective private secondary school. At that school, as you might imagine, they emphasized authentic assessment. One Saturday mornings we ran into my colleague on lower Broadway. We stopped to chat. It turned out that she was there, far from where she lived, to take her daughters to an SAT-prep workshop.

I not-so-innocently asked her how come, if she rejected the validity and fairness of tests such as the SAT, she was paying for her daughters to prep for it.

"Because I want them to do as well as possible," she said, "So they can get into good colleges."

I asked, "Then in your Ford Foundation role how come you resist funding programs that would help low-income students have the same test prepping opportunities?"

She stammered something I couldn't quite hear and ran off to an appointment.

I am still waiting for her answer.

February 20, 2015--Jeb & A-Rod: Mistakes Were Made

In a speech in Chicago Wednesday, presidential-aspirant, former Florida governor, brother of one president, and son of another, to establish himself in foreign policy terms as his "own man" (to quote him), Jeb Bush said--

Look, just for the record, one more time, I love my brother, I love my dad, I actually love my mother as well, hope that's OK. And I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions they had to make, but I am my own man, and my views are shaped by my own thinking and my own experiences.

Then, about his brother's decision to preemptively invade Iraq, he torturously added--

There were mistakes made in Iraq for sure. Using the intelligence capability that everyone embraced about weapons of mass destruction turns out not to be accurate.

He did not say that his brother made a mistake by pressing the CIA to "sex up" the intelligence to justify an otherwise illegal war and then waged war based on that cooked information.

What Jeb had to say represents a little progress from what brother George W said after he left the presidency, as part of his efforts to promote his memoir, Decision Points, when he reluctantly acknowledged, in the very passive voice, that "mistakes were made."

On the same day as Jeb Bush's speech, in his own handwriting, Yankee third baseman Alex Rodriguez wrote--

To the Fans

I take full responsibility for the mistakes that led to my suspension for the 2014 season. I regret that my actions made the situation worse than it needed to be. To Major League Baseball, the Yankees, the Steinbrenner family, the Players Association and you the fans, I can only say I'm sorry.

Who knows how sincere this is but at least he fessed up.

February 4, 2015--Burned Alive

After beheading six innocent captives on elaborately produced videos, ISIS descended to a new low. Assuming anything can be lower than the kinds of things they have already perpetrated and put on barbaric display.

Yesterday they released a 22-minute-long video of the murder of Lt. Moaz al-Kasasbeh. He is the Jordanian A-16 pilot who was either shot down or crashed in ISIS-controlled territory. After failing to get Jordan to meet its ransom demands, they doused him in flammable liquid, put him in a steel cage, lit a fuse, and moved in for closeups as the flames ignited his garment, and  burned him to death. They then crushed him and the cage with a bulldozer.

Rather than breaking Jordan's resolve, officials there rushed to execute the first of six ISIS captives they have been holding and the military leadership vowed an "earth-shaking" retaliation. I can only imagine what that will be.

Meanwhile, back in the United States, calls have been increasing, mainly from Republican hawks--but not exclusively--to arm Syrian rebels and consider sending 10,000 American troops into the region. To put "boots on the ground."

How bad an idea is that?

Considering the reaction in Japan after two Japanese hostages were beheaded and now in Jordan, how do you think we would respond if one of our troops was captured, tortured, and either beheaded or burned alive on vivid TV?

Even with just the current bombing campaign we are leading it is likely that one or more of our pilots will crash and be captured. With troops on the ground, it is inevitable.

All of us, and I stress all, would be so justifiably outraged as to push us to do who-knows-what.

Do we need any of this? A mess and disaster of the first magnitude, sorry to remind you, brought about and catalyzed by the militant policies of the previous American administration. As we think through what to do, let's also keep that in mind.

September 19, 2014--Best of Behind: Off With Their Heads!

This one is from March 27, 2006. Unfortunately, it could have written today--

As a secular liberal I am trying very hard to get comfortable with the idea that there is great diversity within Islam—that not every Muslim is an Islamist radical. That though the Mullahs have control of the government of Iran and run most of the Madrasses in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, over the long course of Islam there have been moderate and tolerant voices, traditions, and practices. I spend a lot of time in Spain, and although I know the period during which much of Spain was under Islamic domination was not exactly a Jeffersonian democracy, Christians and even Jews were tolerated and played open and significant roles in the government, places of study, and the economy.

But the situation in Afghanistan right now, where there is the likelihood that the courts will sentence to beheading Abdul Rahman because he 15 years ago converted from Islam to Christianity, is nudging me toward my own shrinking limits of tolerance.

Like you I know that this is now a hot political issue in the U.S., with President Bush being pushed by the hard Christian Right to intervene. After all didn’t we invade and occupy Afghanistan in retaliation for their harboring and supporting bin Laden as well as to bring democracy to that part of the world? Didn’t we help them write a constitution that attempts to straddle our notion of democracy and their version of conservative Islam? And perhaps, just maybe, didn’t some of us see this as an opportunity to do a little proselytizing on the side?

I know that the Sharia laws about apostasy were shaped as early as the eighth century and when that occurred it was viewed as equivalent to treason—after all Islam at the time was fighting for its very existence and for someone to abandon the religion was literally going over to the enemy.

But that was then and this is now. Some contemporary Muslim jurists who read Islamic history this way also point out that the Prophet never called for the execution of apostates and taught that there should be no compulsion in religion.

Islam is in no way today so equally imperiled, in spite of how many in the Islamic world view our preemptive wars, and so shouldn’t it be possible for Afghanistan to have a constitution that might serve as a model for the moderate diversity within Islam? We’ll see.

I have a further question—putting aside this history, why should conversion from Islam (or any other religion) be such a burning issue? If yours is The True Religion and your coreligionists are the only ones who will go to your version of heaven, isn’t the very fact of leaving your religion and thereby losing the eternal rewards it offers punishment enough? Why not just let apostates live on and suffer throughout the remaining years of their natural lives and after that be condemned for all of eternity to the punishment they so deserve?

Yet once again, I don’t get it.

September 2, 2014--ISIS

Most objective historians contend that George W. Bush and, before him, Bill Clinton ignored the many early signs that Al-Queda represented a deadly threat to the U.S. homeland.

Famously or infamously, President Bush was cutting brush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas and didn't want to be disturbed by a National Security memo that warned of an imminent attack by Al-Qaeda on America.

It was a failure to "connect the dots," both critics and apologists said retrospectively. It was at least that. Worse--why did citizens and our government have to learn about the reach and power of Al Qaeda for the first time on 9/11?

Which brings me to today to ISIS, the even more radical successor to Al-Qaeda.

ISIS, the jihadist faction that has recently swept out of Syria, where it was incubated, and is rampaging through central Iraq, slaughtering Shiites, Kurds, and Christians as it expands the borders of its self-procliamed Caliphate is now commanding the attention of Western leaders. President Obama as well as British Prime Minister Cameron cut short their vacations to pay more attention to this dangerous movement.

Where did they come from seemingly so quickly? How did they develop the capacity, apparently overnight, to take on first Syria's army and then roll back Kurdish and Iraqi armed forces? Armies that we equipped and trained for years to be self-sufficient retreated across Iraq with hardly a fight in the face of ISIS's self-trained militias.

Why does it appears that the president and other world leaders are just now learning about ISIS and finally taking action to halt its advance? Including, President Obama implied late last week, seeking them out at their sanctuaries in Syria.

Did we again forget to connect the dots when we began to notice that scores of Americans and hundreds of Europeans were making their way to Syria to join the rebels fighting the Assad regime and then to enlist in ISIS's brigades?

It is understandable that we did not want to get directly involved in arming the rebels in Syria much less supplying air cover or, worse, boots on the ground. The situation is a quagmire, best to remain uninvolved; but if we had evidence that the situation there was an incubator of jihadist terrorists who might ultimately threaten us directly, maybe we should have reconsidered keeping our hands off.

Perhaps we should have learned some lessons from our own history of involvement in the region. First, how we intervened in a surrogate Cold War confrontation with Russia in Afghanistan. How we armed the Mujahideen who in turn defeated the Russians and then, without pausing to thank us, using our weapons, transformed themselves into the Taliban who shortly thereafter supported and provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda fighters. As a result there was 9/11.

A version of the same thing is now happening in Syria-Iraq.

After we brought down Saddam Hussein, with the full participation of the American occupying forces, we agreed with the Shiite majority to rid the government and, more importantly, the military of any Sunni Muslims who were members of Hussein's Baathist Party. We took the lead in the de-Baathification of the country and placed our support behind the Shiites who, in the process, disenfranchising this talented group of government officials and military leaders, also doing all they could to publicly humiliate them.

So it should come as no surprise to find them now in leadership roles within ISIS. A major reason ISIS is so effective, so able to fight with discipline and precision, is because of their Baathist allies, who, as in Afghanistan, have taken possession of massive amounts of American arms and weapon systems that they seized from the retreating Shiite forces.

As a consequence, again because of inept American and European leadership, expect to see us engaged soon in various forms of combat in the lands now controlled by ISIS--in Iraq, Kurdistan, and even Syria, where, as a result, ironically, we may wind up helping Bashar al-Assad to keep his grip on power.

August 27, 2014--Off the Hook

At the heart of Barack Obama's education reform initiative, Race to the Top, are various ways to hold school districts, administrators, and especially teachers accountable for student learning. This approach is actually an extension of George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind.

From day one, back in Bush's day, teachers unions offered lip service support for these efforts, feeling that though their main agenda is protecting teachers' jobs, even incompetent ones, they could not publicly oppose approaches designed to enhance student learning, especially those that address the achievement gap that separates minority students from more affluence white students.

But first with NCLB and more recently with Race, the unions quietly and increasingly more openly have been chipping away at the accountability provisions of both programs.

Most recently they have criticized the results of high-stakes academic achievement testing as the primary way to measure teacher performance, claiming that with the introduction of the new Common Core curriculum in nearly 40 states, a product of the National Governors Association, there has not been enough time for teachers to be orientated to carrying it out effectively.

Until just recently the Obama administration, led by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, has been holding the line, saying there in fact has been enough time for states and school districts to help teachers master the new content and the use of testing would continue to be used when evaluating individual schools and individual teachers.

This is quite a big deal because not only can there be consequences for low-performing teachers (they might not get tenure or, rare, even be let go) but also federal education dollars to states and districts are largely contingent on how schools and districts perform.

Under considerable pressure from teachers unions that historically have provided significant support for Democratic candidates, and because in June Duncan stepped into the current teacher tenure debate, offering his strong endorsement for a judge's decision to dramatically limit tenure in California, Duncan last week said that the DoE would allow another year to pass before using student test scores when evaluating teachers.

He said, "I believe testing issues are sucking the oxygen out of the room in a lot of schools" and thus teachers needed more time to adapt to the new standards and the tests pegged to those standards.

What he might have said is that oxygen is being sucked out of schools because students in unacceptable numbers are not learning and teachers and school administrators must be held accountable for that. Not in another year, but now.

June 25, 2014--Sunnistan

I know next to nothing but for years knew that as soon as the U.S. withdrew its troops from "Iraq" there would be civil war and eventually--actually soon--there will be at least three countries replacing "Iraq."

"Iraq" is in quotes to suggest that it is a geopolitical fiction. It is no more a culturally-consistent country than Syria or Jordan, current-day Lebanon or Israel. The list goes on. All were creations of European and American victors at the end of World War I.

I know next to nothing about the situation in strife-torn Syria, but for at least two years, from casually reading the New York Times and other sources, I knew that the chaos in Syria and northwestern "Iraq" was an incubator for extravagantly jihadist factions. I had never heard of ISIS (and it appears that neither did most of our leaders), but I knew thousands of youthful militants (including many from the United States and Western Europe) were streaming to Syria to be trained to join the fray and to become suicide bombers.

Again I know next to nothing, but knew that the so-called border between Syria and "Iraq" was porous and in danger of being obliterated and that a new country would emerge that will likely in the future be known as Sunnistan. As there will be a Shiastan (allied with Iran) and of course a Kurdistan.

So if I, knowing so little, knew this much where have our leaders been?

Since Syria was the place where this toxic mix was being compounded, why didn't the Obama administration agree to directly help the moderate forces who were struggling to overthrow Bashar al-Assad as well as fend off the most violent of the jihadists?

It may not have worked (what does in that region?) but wasn't it at least worth a try? Now, we have to reengage in "Iraq" to save some bits and pieces of stability from the mess George W. Bush and his handlers brought about by their invasion and occupation.

We spent $1.7 trillion (with a T) in Iraq and one would think that would at least have bought us a functioning intelligence network that would have warned us about what was bubbling in Sunnistan.

Or, for $2.50 a day, the administration could have picked up the Times at the corner newsstand and known from its coverage what was happening.

In case they didn't want to spend all that money on the Times, they could have for free checked the ISIS website regularly where, without spin, they openly publish their agenda and flaunt their achievements. One can also consult their annual reports. Yes, like a corporation or national state they issue them!

Among these "achievements," again reported yesterday in the Times, is the capture and control of all roads that connect Syria with "Iraq" and "Iraq" with Jordan.

So, in effect, Sunnistan now exists.

June 12, 2014--Where's Saddam?

Here's a multiple choice question for you now that Sunni militants in Iraq have stormed and taken control of Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, and Tikrit, only 60 miles from Baghdad. This after overrunning and seizing Fallujah six months ago.

In these cities the black flag of the jihadi group, The Islamic State of Iraq, flies over public buildings. The lawless border between Syria and western Iraq is virtually obliterated, and these al-Qaeda linked factions are on their way to redraw the map of this region so that it reverts to the nation states that existed until the end of the First World War when lines were drawn in the sand to carve out European and American spheres of influence.

The Iraq police force and army that we spent hundreds of billions training so that the Iraqi government could protect all citizens and the country from just this sort of internal, virtual civil war are in various states of collapse, with soldiers and police deserting in droves, shedding their uniforms and abandoning their weapons in attempts to blend into the civilian population.

With the current situation as dire as it is, and only promising to worsen, here is the question--

With things as unravelled as they appear to be, what would you prefer:

(a)  The United States should not have withdrawn its combat forces and should have committed to remaining in Iraq indefinitely as we are in Korea and Germany.

(b) We should intervene directly in Syria, including arming the rebels and, if necessary, placing American boots on the ground, since most of the jihadists in Iraq were trained, armed, and launched from Syria.

(c) We should exhume Saddam Hussein, revive him, and place him and his repressive henchmen back in power.

(d) If none of the above, what?

I'm inclined to (c). You?

And, while struggling to answer the question, we should again remind ourselves that this dangerous mess is the true legacy of George W. Bush and his neo-con and congressional enablers.

April 1, 2104--Progressives' Dirty-Little-Secret

Here's the dirty-little-secret--

Liberals and progressives like me are actually clandestinely happy with most of George W. Bush's policies.

That's why there are no large-scale protests. Occupy Wall Street came and went in a month. The rest is silence except for the occasional New York Times editorial and the shouting and smugness that passes for political discourse on MSNBC.

With the tax season culminating in two weeks, we liberals are especially happy with what the Bush-era tax cuts have meant for us.

Demographically, progressives are more highly educated, have better jobs, and earn more money than "ordinary" conservatives. Thus, all things being equal (which they are not thanks to the previous president) we affluent lefties have disproportionately benefitted from the 2001 tax reductions that Bush promulgated (to be fair and balanced, 12 Democratic senators voted for them) and Obama reupped in 2009, with Democrats in numbers again endorsed.

On Saturday from our accountant we received our filled-out tax forms for 2013. We had a good earnings years and needed to pay a little more than in 2012. But, but, as the result of the Bush-Obama tax cuts we owed about $5,000 less than we would have had to pay under Clinton's more progressive tax polices.

Furthermore, how many liberals are out in the streets protesting cuts in food stamps and aid to education; slashes in spending for medical and science research; less available for environmental protection; cutbacks in support for women's health programs; Supreme Court decisions to allow unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns and the effective rollback of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

We're even OK with Bush's Patriot Act and Obama's use and expansion of it since we care more about protecting our comforts than our privacy.

And, since we have an all-volunteer military and our children and grandchildren are not in danger of being drafted, much less inclined to sign up and be shipped off to Iraq or Afghanistan (or Ukraine), beyond spouting rhetoric about how awful all this is, how perfidious and hypocritical Republicans are (they are), we secretly smile when we sign our tax forms, sit back on the deck at our vacation homes, and sip Chablis while streaming House of Cards.

Hey, if these policies don't affect me directly why get all out of joint much less use Twitter as they do or did in Egypt and Venezuela and Russia to mobilize? It's cold out there, it might rain, and I might even get my head busted by an overzealous policeman.

Even if half the states so restrict abortions as to make them unavailable, we live on one or the other of the coasts--so no problem.

Actually, for the fortunate us there are few problems with anything.